Many companies that think they have innovation problems don't have an innovation problem. They have a leadership problem in most cases.
Innovation is defined as the development and implementation of new ideas by people who over time engage in transactions with others within an institutional order. Large companies like IBM, Syngenta, Procter & Gamble, 3M, and Unilever show that innovation can be a repeatable discipline. Emerging upstarts like Google and Amazon.com show how innovation can be embedded into an organization's culture from day one.
Yet, with all of this progress it still feels like a positive surprise when you see a large company confidently approach the challenges of innovation.
Further, leaders can't just set the context and hope that innovation happens. Innovation is enough of an unnatural act in most companies that it requires the day-by-day attention of the company's top leadership team or it simply won't stick.
Critically, leaders have to figure out how to manage two distinct operating systems: one that minimizes mistakes and maximizes productivity in today's business versus one that encourages experimentation and maximizes learning in tomorrow's business. It isn't either/or. It is both/and. Good leadership qualifications will definitely be a good way to solve these problems, see